POPLA decision rejected

Umkomaas

riverking wrote: »

Thanks, these appear to be "letter before claim" examples, I was looking for "letter before action" examples or are these the right ones?

LBA, LBC, LBCCC are all the same - they are not differentiated in terms of a response.

riverking

Umkomaas wrote: »

LBA, LBC, LBCCC are all the same - they are not differentiated in terms of a response.

In which case is the letter to use and amend this one...or the one posted previously?


Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of x.

When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time. Extraordinarily, I was told (in blunt terms) by [name of debt collectors] that no such evidence would be provided "until this gets to court" [try and reproduce the exact words used].


You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago as [date - if you don't know exact date, put the month and year]. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.


This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your client cannot simply refuse to provide the relevant information "until this gets to court" [or whatever they said].

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Umkomaas

If you’re responding directly to CEL, the one you’ve copied into post #21 is addressed to the court, so that wouldn't be relevant unless/until a small claim is made against you via the CCBC, and then, only if appropriate.

riverking

Thanks so is this correct and sufficient for a LBA to CEL? I'm not clear on the extent to which I need to supply specific info on my case vs the generic stuff that is cut and pasted?


Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of x.


I have repeatedly made it clear that no evidence has been supplied to demonstarte that I contravened the parking regulations....[do I need to supply info about my case here?].

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16.


Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully etc.

riverking

riverking wrote: »

Thanks so is this correct and sufficient for a LBA to CEL? I'm not clear on the extent to which I need to supply specific info on my case vs the generic stuff that is cut and pasted?


Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of x.


I have repeatedly made it clear that no evidence has been supplied to demonstarte that I contravened the parking regulations....[do I need to supply info about my case here?].

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16.


Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully etc.

Can anyone confirm this before I proceed. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

As you've already blabbed about who was driving (which, sadly, is why you lost at POPLA - we have 100% win rate v CEL and they rarely even take it to POPLA v posters here) I would remind them near the start that there was no contravention and the car drove in and out twice, as per your post here:

I entered a car park in Greenwich London. I couldn't find a space. I entered and finally exited 26 mins apart. During that time my defence to Popla was that I entered and exited twice in the 26 minute period so that I didn't contravene.

Then I would remove #2 (because it's obvious how they are pursuing you, as admitted driver) and replace it with a requirement for evidence in the form of the location's VRN data records - in and out, all times THIS vehicle passed any of their cameras, during that half hour period.

To be sure you get this, tell them this should be treated as a Subject Access Request for that record (that is,if you are SURE the car went out, then returned).

Chances are there are 3 records of the car, and only one was missed by the ANPR camera, maybe due to another car/or a pedestrian obscuring the numberplate.

The system then 'defaults' to first in last out, as explained by the Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

HTH

riverking

Thank you :-)